In the wake of the California Supreme Court opinion affirming that cities and counties can outlaw medical marijuana dispensaries by invoking local zoning laws, proponents of medicinal pot in Los Angeles say the stakes are now higher for passing a comprehensive plan regulating the sale and distribution of marijuana in the city.

The state's highest court ruled unanimously Monday that the city of Riverside had the right to prohibit all pot dispensaries in their jurisdiction, adding to a list of roughly 200 localities with zoning bans already in place. It's the expectation by many engrossed in California's marijuana debate that other cities and counties will follow suit, upping the ante for the three medicinal pot initiatives -- Proposition D and ordinances E and F -- on Los Angeles' May 21 ballot.

"Given yesterday's Court ruling, if none of the three medical marijuana measures passes, it could embolden the City Council to once again seek banning [dispensaries] altogether," said Bradley Hertz, an attorney for the Yes on Proposition D campaign, a Los Angeles City Council-backed initiative seeking to regulate local pot shops.

Hertz's concern stems from last year, when the Los Angeles City Council approved a "gentle ban" on marijuana businesses within city limits. Led by Los Angeles City Councilmember Jose Huizar, among others, the 2012 ban called for all pot stores to close, allowing only for small collectives of four or fewer caretakers and/or patients to stay open.

The ban was fueled by collective sentiment that the pot clinics were contributing to crime increases in a number of council districts and that patients were abusing medical marijuana prescriptions. The number of dispensaries was also skyrocketing, making regulation nearly impossible.

Huizar believes the Court's ruling validates the Council's "gentle ban." He has long advocated for the Council to wait for clarification from the state Supreme Court before enacting any new medical pot legislation.

Monday's ruling, in his eyes, was just that.

"This court ruling tells us that if chaos ensues once again and there is rampant abuse of whatever ordinance voters approve on May 21, we as a City have the authority to outright ban medical marijuana dispensaries," Huizar said in a statement to KCET's Ballot Brief.

The authority described by Huizar lies in the implementation of zoning laws. Zoning, in relation to land use, is the way local governments control what is built within their jurisdiction.

In California, the regulation of land use has constitutionally been the province of local governments, explained Jane Usher of the Los Angeles City Attorney's office. A classic example of land use prohibiting certain businesses, Usher said, is with tanneries or slaughterhouses in the state.

"People understand that over time many -- if not most cities -- in California outlawed slaughterhouses within their jurisdiction," Usher said. "This was done with zoning."

According to the state Supreme Court ruling, authored by Justice Marvin Baxter, "...while some counties and cities might consider themselves well suited to accommodat[e] medical marijuana dispensaries, conditions in other communities might lead to the reasonable decision that such facilities... would present unacceptable local risks and burdens."

Usher expects the Court's opinion will encourage most of California's cities and counties to invoke zoning laws to ban marijuana businesses operating in their jurisdiction.

"[Cities and counties] know that if they attempt to regulate, they will be subjected to exhaustive litigation," she said. "Every 'I' that they dot, every 'T' they cross, every breath they breathe into their regulation will be challenged."

"That was the case here in Los Angeles for the past 5 to 6 years," Usher added.

With the fate of Los Angeles' estimated 1,700 to 1,800 medical marijuana clinics hanging in the balance, voters will have the chance later this month to decide whether they want to regulate local dispensaries or leave that decision up to the City Council.

And with the City Council's history of seeking an outright ban, proponents of medical marijuana believe May 21 is their one chance.

"Our position is that we are the watchdogs for the community that use marijuana medicinal or otherwise," said Bruce Margolin, Director of Los Angeles' NORML chapter, an advocacy group seeking outright legalization of marijuana. "We believe the number of the dispensieries should match up with the number of people who live in the community."

The limiting or closure of medical marijuana stores would certainly not accomplish that goal, Margolin -- who supports Ordinance F -- added.

The city's three medical pot initiatives -- Proposition D and ordinances E and F -- outline three distinct, yet intersecting plans for the regulation and taxation of medicinal pot inside city limits. The measures include provisions on capping the number of dispensaries, raising taxes on earnings and providing background checks on employees, among others.

"I hope the [California Supreme] Court's ruling focuses voter's attention on the medical marijuana ballot measures and encourages people to vote," Hertz said. "And that they see that Proposition D is the best option."

For a little help navigating Los Angeles' three proposals for regulating medical marijuana, KCET's Ballot Brief has put together a cheat sheets for voters: Proposition D, Ordinance E, and Ordinance F. ]]>

Posted Cheat Sheet: Proposition C Seeks to Limit Corporations' Influence on Campaigns to Ballot Brieftag:www.kcet.org,2013:/news/ballotbrief//1823.591882013-05-06T18:20:00Z2013-05-06T21:46:15ZRoughly $6 billion were spent in the 2012 election season on political campaigns, with much of that money coming from corporations, labor unions and special interest groups. Proposition C would instruct L.A.'s Washington contingent to support any legislation that would limit spending in political races by the aforementioned groups.Benjamin Gottliebhttp://www.kcet.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1823&id=4304

The 2012 election season was, by far, the most expensive in United States history.

More than $6 billion were spent on candidates running for local, state, and national offices. The presidential race alone had a $2.6 billion bill. The unprecedented spending trumped the second-most expensive campaign season by more than $700 million.

One can argue that anticipated economic factors, such as inflation, made such exceptional expenditure possible.

But for proponents of Proposition C, the unparalleled spending is the result of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), a 2010 United States Supreme Court decision that prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and special interest groups.

On May 21, Los Angeles voters will weigh in on this ruling with Proposition C, a measure that would instruct local lawmakers -- especially those who take up residence in Washington -- to support legislation calling for a reversal of this Supreme Court decision. The idea is that, eventually, public pressure will prompt the drafting of a constitutional amendment that would remove big money from electioneering for good.

Regardless of your stance on campaign finance reform and the appropriate role of corporations in political races, it's imperative for Los Angeles voters to understand that Proposition C merely a symbolic accord. There is no binding language in Proposition C. Nothing that would shake the foundation of the Citizens United ruling. Nothing that will take away the rights of corporations from funding the campaigns of their choosing in the near future.

But the initiative's proponents -- the Committee for Common Cause and the California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) -- hope they can evoke change through popular sentiment and recreate the furor that brought forth the 17th Amendment to the United States' Constitution.

For those blanking on their U.S. history, the 17th Amendment forever changed the way U.S. Senators are elected to office. Prior to the amendment, the United States' Constitution instructed each state legislature to elect its own representatives to the Senate. Senators were not chosen by popular vote.

However reformists in the early 1900s championed symbolic votes, much like the Proposition C campaign, in state legislatures across the country. The political momentum generated by these symbolic votes spurred the writing and passage of the 17th Amendment, which mandates that representatives to the Senate be selected by popular vote.

Proposition C aims to take a page out of history. Its proponents say this is just another step (albeit a major one, given Los Angeles' population) in a process to limit the power of big corporations, labor unions and special interest groups in our political process.

States like Colorado and Montana have passed similar measures, as have the major cities of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco. Voters on May 21 will decide if Los Angeles follows suit.

Key Points:

Would instruct Los Angeles' leaders in Washington to support any resolution calling for an amendment to the United States Constitution that would limit the rights of corporations with regard to funding political campaigns and overturn the Supreme Court's rulings in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010).

Would instruct Los Angeles' leaders in Washington to work diligently to bring such a joint resolution to a vote and passage.

Would instruct each state legislator representing Los Angeles residents to ratify any amendment to the Constitution that is consistent with the purpose and findings expressed in this resolution.

What Your Vote Means:

Voting YES or NO on Proposition C will not have an immediate impact on municipal, state, or federal law.

However voting YES would encourage local politicians to propose and/or support any constitutional amendment that would limit the rights of corporations, labor unions, and special interest groups with regard to funding political campaigns.

A vote NO would not instruct the Los Angeles Congressional Delegation to pursue legislation that would limit the rights of corporations with regard to political expenditures.

Arguments Being Made For:

Big money has no place in elections and our democracy should never be for sale.

Corporations are not people, and therefore do not deserve the same rights.

Granting multinational corporations artificial rights above and beyond the individual rights of their shareholders undermines the rights of real people as voters, consumers and small business owners.

Voters in Montana, Colorado, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, and elsewhere have approved similar measures in the past year by overwhelming majorities.

Arguments Being Made Against:

There are no official arguments made against Proposition C in the May 21 voter's guide. Below are popular arguments made against the ballot measure.

Proposition C is an empty measure and will not enact change on it's own.

The United States Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that the First Amendment prohibits the government from limiting political expendatures by associations, corporations, and labor unions (Citizens United v. FEC, 2010).

You are correct. A "residential collective" is defined here as a household where marijuana is cultivated by a prescription-holding person or persons. Dwellings zoned residential would be exempt from all regulations put forth under Ordinance F.

]]>
Posted Beyond the Snail: The Art and Imagination of the Coachella Festival to Artboundtag:www.kcet.org,2013:/arts/artbound//1834.588322013-04-24T23:00:00Z2013-05-03T23:57:13ZAt Coachella, L.A. artists continue to dominate the festival's art arena.
Benjamin Gottliebhttp://www.kcet.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1834&id=4304
When thinking of the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival, headliner bands, incessant thumping of DJ sets and that ever-glowing sun instantly come to mind.

But as the infamous desert music festival enters its adolescence, event planner Goldenvoice continues to push the boundaries on new, innovative art installations, placing greater effort and resources into their design and selection. "We are looking for the biggest, most dramatic, creative pieces of art that we can possibly build in ten days," says Paul Clemente, the Coachella Valley Music and Art Festival's art director for the past eight years. "We want to blow peoples minds."

Outside of the festival's twin Tesla coils, which have become a staple of the event, all of this year's main art installations were indigenous to Coachella, having never been seen prior to the two weekends of festivities. This year, Los Angeles artists -- maybe more than ever before -- continue to dominate the festival's main areas.

Perhaps it's a marriage that is born from proximity. But Clement, who also helmed the "Mirage" art project -- a life-sized mid-century-styled Palm Springs hacienda -- insists that the festival is becoming Mecca for festival artists, not just the hottest musical acts.

He entertained some 300 proposals from across the world last year for the 2013 Coachella festival, the most since the event's inception in 1999.

"[Coachella] is a great opportunity for exposure for your art, no doubt about it," Clemente says. "We are also funding these projects 100 percent. That is very interesting for artists."

Now in its 14th year, the festival continues to expand, selling out this year in a matter of hours and playing host to 180,000 revelers over two weekends. The huge crowds, coupled with the festival's location on the expansive Empire Polo Club in Indio, create an ideal combination of engrossed eyes and open space for large art installations, Clemente adds.

Some of the festival's artists, like Cynthia Washburn of Poetic Kinetics, say Coachella has slowly become a must for artists looking to break into the global festival art scene. "With all the exposure here, I think Coachella is becoming as attractive for artists as it is for the musicians," says Washburn. Her team built two installations this year, including a giant praying mantis and glistening snail. "Art has become a huge part of the festival... we are honored to be here." Called Helix Poeticus, the slow moving, over-sized invertebrate has a Twitter feed: @CoachellaSnail.

So what does it take to showcase your art at Coachella? From a shimmering giant snail to a recycled tyrannosaurus, here's a closer look at a few of Coachella's Los Angeles-based artists and the stories behind their installations:

Helix Poeticus (The Snail) - Poetic Kinetics, Los Angeles

To some, the thought of a giant, 30-foot-tall iridescent snail slowly inching its way toward thousands of unsuspecting people may seem menacing, even the stuff right out of a bad horror film. For the Poetic Kinetics team, however, the snail dubbed Helix Poeticus was simply a decades-long art project in the making. Built on top of one of the variable reach forklifts used to set up the festival, the 80-foot-long silver-skinned mollusk is the latest edition of an idea hatched at Burningman, a popular desert celebration, in 2002.

The snail dominated the horizon at this year's Coachella, able to be seen from hundreds of yards across the polo field and kindling uncontrollable joy from those who stumbled upon it.

"We wanted to build a really large, moving sculpture for this year's event," says Washburn of the art company Poetic Kinetics, the art team responsible for the snail. "A moving object of this size has never been seen here at Coachella." As if the sheer size of the Helix Poeticus wasn't enough, the snail's glittering canvas skin was covered in graffiti and performance-based mural art. "We saw some photographs from an artist that had painted graffiti on live snails, and that was part of the inspiration for this snail concept," she adds.

Along with her confidante Patrick Shearn, Washburn and her team worked for roughly two months straight to build the snail and praying mantis installations, the second of the team's projects. The team is also in the process of editing a video from Helix Poeticus' point of view on the first weekend of the festival.

CAUAC Twins - Syd Klinge, Los Angeles

Flanked by Mayan-inspired Tiki torches and powered by an electrifying 130,000 watts -- the equivalent of nearly 20 family homes with every light and appliance on -- behind him, Syd Klinge throws the switch on the CAUAC Twins, a pair Tesla coils set in the heart of Coachella that brought festival goers to their knees.

Generating some 5 million volts between the two, the arcs of the coils are able to connect from 40 feet, creating several awe-inspiring beams of blue colored energy. The pungent, yet indecipherable smell of ozone hovers over the installation, defining one of the marquee art pieces of the festival.

"At that voltage, it actually sets the air on fire," Klinge says. "It's like a lightening strike." Klinge has been bringing his Tesla coils to the Coachella Valley Music and Art Festival for 10 years, continually building on his earlier models to provided revelers with a fresh experience. He says he relishes the task of making his coils more efficient and powerful.

"As you would imagine, you are wrestling with much more than the visual," Klinge says. "There is some serious engineering and technology that you have to work for and it's been evolving."

Klinge says he is inspired to continue bringing his coils to the festival by looking at the faces of those seeing them for the first time. "Some things just remain amazing to people. No matter how many times you see it, the coils are still incredible."

Recyclosauras Rex - Johny Amerika, Los Angeles

Since the inception of the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival, event planners have struggled with waste problems, chiefly the disposal of recyclable materials like plastic water bottles at the conclusion of each day.

"At the end of the night - since say, 1999 - the festival grounds would be knee-deep in bottles," says Johny Amerika, creator of Recyclosauras Rex, a massive, bionic Tyrannosaurus Rex made exclusively from recyclable materials. "This project aims to stave off some of that. It aims to make recycling less of a chore and more fun."

Made from old bridge pieces and discarded aerospace equipment, "Millie" - as referred to affectionately by its creator -- is just the dinosaur for the job. Powered by a large hydraulic pump, the recycling T-Rex is able to bend over and be fed bags of aluminum cans and plastic bottles. Amerika and his team then use their pump -- capable of 2,000lbs per square inch of force -- to crush Millie's inorganic meal into a neat, easily recyclable cube. The art installation is also located next to one of many recycling stations. Festival attendees were encouraged to recycle throughout the weekend, lured by the promise of a fresh water bottle if they recycle ten discarded ones.

"You can see it chewing up bottles and cans and it poops them up much smaller. And it's a kick. It hits some real knee jerk, key thing," Amerika says. "I mean -- it's a dinosaur. Everyone loves dinosaurs."

Mirage - Paul Clemente, Los Angeles

During the hottest hours of the day, the three-story-high Mirage serves as a much-needed reprieve from the hot desert sun, offering shade to worn-out revelers desperate for some semblance of relaxation at an otherwise non-stop festival.

But at night, the house transforms into a full-blown mid-century Palm Springs cocktail party, complete with well-dressed attendees and a bikini-clad woman occupying an outdoor pool. The nostalgic scenes, six different ones in total, are made possible by 23 different projectors methodically placed in and around the complex.

"I really like the historical connection that this style of building has to the Coachella Valley," Clemente, the artists responsible for the Mirage and the festival's art director, says. "It's probably the most well-known design contribution that ever came from this part of the world."

Clemente said the idea for Mirage building came him while browsing through a few books on 20th century modern architecture at a bookstore. That night, he went home and sketched out what would become the Mirage, an actual-sized house built for just 10 days on the polo field that houses Coachella.

"What impresses me is when people will go to great lengths they to make something amazing that lasts only a short period of time," Clemente says.

For Clemente, "great lengths" was transplanting two 50-foot tall palm trees, planting them on the field and building a real-sized structure around them. He also pointed to the 50,000 lbs of solid granite his team of nearly a two-dozen -- including a dozen local carpenters and a half-dozen projection operators, among others -- used as landscaping.

"People came up to this weekend and said, 'where'd you get the fake rocks?' And I was like, 'naw man, they're real,'" Clemente says.

PK-107 Mantis - Poetic Kinetics, Los Angeles

In the waning hours of the evening, the PK-107 Mantis' illuminated eyes are seen from a distance rising up into the dusty night sky, a photographer placed snugly in a basket between them. The second of two art installations built by the Poetic Kinetics team, the PK-107 Mantis was inspired by the group's previous festival work, chiefly last year's giant flower, "Solitary Inflorescence."

"We wanted to do something a little more menacing than flowers," Washburn says. "We were watching praying mantises and we're like, 'they are really creepy.' So we came up with this whole idea of the Mantis."

Much like the giant snail, PK-107 Mantis was built on top of the heavy machinery used to set up the festival itself. Able to be controlled from both the ground and the man basket, the crane extends some 125 feet into the air, disturbing the night sky by cycling the colors of its LED lights.

Washburn points to the inherent personality present in heavy machinery as the reason her team decided to build on top of construction machinery. "The work we do for festivals is purely whimsical and seeks to evoke a sense of play," Washburn says. "We wondered how we could capitalize on this equipment that is already here and turn it into something amazing?"

Together with the snail project, the Poetic Kinetics team spent two months building their pieces for this year's festival. Together, their giant beasts ruled over the festival, one towering high above while the snail crawled through the crowds of sunbaked concert-goers.

Dig this story? Vote by hitting the Facebook like button above and tweet it out, and it could be turned into a short video documentary. Also, follow Artbound on Facebook and Twitter.

Top Image: Balloon Chain by Robert Bose | Photo By Sarah Parvini.

]]>
Posted Cheat Sheet: Proposition D to Limit, Tax L.A. Medical Marijuana Shops to Ballot Brieftag:www.kcet.org,2013:/news/ballotbrief//1823.588012013-04-24T00:05:02Z2013-04-24T00:20:51ZPhoto: Dank Depot/Filckr/Creative Commons License After two voter-led medical marijuana initiatives made their way onto Los Angeles' May 21 ballot, the City Council was determined to act. Proposition D is the Los Angeles City Council's response to these two initiatives...Benjamin Gottliebhttp://www.kcet.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1823&id=4304

After two voter-led medical marijuana initiatives made their way onto Los Angeles' May 21 ballot, the City Council was determined to act. Proposition D is the Los Angeles City Council's response to these two initiatives -- ordinances E and F -- and intended to be a compromise between the two.

At its core, Proposition D is a nonproliferation law. It seeks to limit the number of medical marijuana dispensaries operating within the city to 135, approximately the same number allowed by the city prior to a 2007 moratorium imposed by the City Council. Currently, there's an estimated 1,700 to 1,800 dispensaries.

]]>
The proposition also seeks to increase taxes on dispensaries by 20 percent.

Supporters of Ordinance E, chiefly the United Farm and Commercial Workers union, have recently thrown their support behind D. Angelenos for Safe Access Committee, a consortium of dispensaries not allowed under present city laws, remains vehemently opposed.

Caps the number of medical marijuana dispensaries operating within city limits at 135.

Raises taxes on dispensaries from $50 to $60 for every $1,000 of gross earnings, a 20 percent increase.

Does not mandate testing of marijuana sold at dispensaries for pesticides and toxins.

Requires background checks for all dispensary employees.

Permits minors who are caregivers and/or patients to enter a dispensary when accompanied by a parent or legal guardian.

All dispensaries must stay closed between the hours of 8 p.m. to 10 a.m.

Dwellings of three or fewer caretakers/patients growing marijuana for their patients or themselves are exempt from regulation.

What Your Vote Means:

Voting YES would force the closure of an estimated 1,700 medical marijuana dispensaries currently operating within city limits and a tax increase of 20 percent on the remaining 135 dispensaries.

Voting NO would mean the medical marijuana dispensaries that opened after the 2007 city-imposed moratorium would be allowed to keep their doors open. Taxes would not increase on dispensaries.

Arguments Being Made For:

Proposition D was drafted by the city of Los Angeles and put on the ballot by the City Council, not by special interest groups.

It's a fair compromise between the two voter-led initiatives seeking to regulate medical marijuana in the City.

It's supported by locally elected and neighborhood leaders, patients, caregivers, and patient advocates.

It would reduce the number of dispensaries to approximately 135, down from an estimated 1,700-1,800 that currently exists, and raise taxes on those dispensaries to inject much needed revenue into the City's, coffers

Arguments Being Made Against:

Proposition D is based on a distinction between marijuana collectives that was found to be unconstitutional by Judge Anthony Mohr of the Los Angeles Superior Court and could be found unconstitutional again -- which would leave the city without regulation.

The proposition will increase the proliferation of illegal pot shops across Los Angeles.

It would protect the untold millions of illegal cash profits made by illegal pot shop owners at the expense of our communities.

It will not provide additional tax revenue. Medicine is not subject to tax.

The proposition would put the city in endless litigtion, diverting vital resources from core services.

Principal Proponent(s):

The city of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles City Council, United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW)

For the full text of the proposition, scroll through below:

NOTE: The author of this post -- not the proponents of each measure -- selected the aforementioned key points for each ballot measure. They do not represent all of the provisions detailed in Proposition D and ordinances E and F, rather they are intended to offer the salient details.

]]>
Posted Cheat Sheet: Ordinance E to Limit, Redefine L.A. Medical Marijuana Shops to Ballot Brieftag:www.kcet.org,2013:/news/ballotbrief//1823.588032013-04-24T00:05:01Z2013-04-24T00:19:24ZPhoto: City of West Hollywood/Filckr/Creative Commons License Originally supported by the Committee to Protect Patients and Neighborhoods and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union, Ordinance E is now the odd man out in this three-pronged medical marijuana debate....Benjamin Gottliebhttp://www.kcet.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1823&id=4304

Originally supported by the Committee to Protect Patients and Neighborhoods and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union, Ordinance E is now the odd man out in this three-pronged medical marijuana debate. Like the city of Los Angeles' Proposition D, Ordinance E seeks to limit the number of medical marijuana dispensaries operating within the city to 135, the approximate number approved by the city prior to the 2007 moratorium placed on dispensaries. Currently, there's an estimated 1,700 to 1,800 dispensaries.

But Ordinance E has one major oversight: nowhere in the legislation is there a stipulation to raise taxes on medical marijuana dispensaries. The omission, coupled with a series of compromises made between Ordinance E proponents and the City Council, has led the original supporters of Ordinance E to abandon the measure. They have instructed their supporters to vote for Proposition D.

Notwithstanding, Ordinance E will still be on the May 21 ballot. And while its principal proponents have jumped ship, the ballot measure still has support.

Permits minors who are caregivers and/or patients to enter a dispensary when accompanied by a parent or legal guardian.

Does not mandate testing of marijuana sold at dispensaries for pesticides and toxins.

Requires background checks for all dispensary employees.

All dispensaries must stay closed between the hours of 8 p.m. to 10 a.m.

Exempts groups of five or fewer caregivers/patients who cultivate or process medical marijuana from regulation.

What Your Vote Means:

Voting YES would cap the number of legal medical marijuana dispensaries at 135, but allow collectives with five or fewer patients and/or caregivers to be exempt for regulation. It would also not increase taxes on dispensaries.

Voting NO would mean the medical marijuana dispensaries that opened after the 2007 city-imposed moratorium would be allowed to keep their doors open.

Arguments Being Made For:

The official proponents of Ordinance E have concluded that the Los Angeles City Council-backed Proposition D supports the principles set forth in their initiative, and say there is no longer a need for voters to support Ordinance E.

Arguments Being Made Against:

The ordinance will increase the proliferation of illegal pot shops across Los Angeles.

It would protect the untold millions of illegal cash profits made by illegal pot shop owners at the expense of our communities.

The ordinance would put the City in endless litigtion, diverting vital resources from core services.

Ordinance E does not raise taxes on dispensaries, blocking much-needed revenue for the city.

Principal Proponent(s):

Committee to Protect Patients and Neighborhoods; previously backed by the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW).

For the full text of the ordinance, scroll through below:

NOTE: The author of this post -- not the proponents of each measure -- selected the aforementioned key points for each ballot measure. They do not represent all of the provisions detailed in Proposition D and ordinances E and F, rather they are intended to offer the salient details.

]]>
Posted Cheat Sheet: Ordinance F to Keep L.A.'s Medical Marijuana Shops Open to Ballot Brieftag:www.kcet.org,2013:/news/ballotbrief//1823.588042013-04-24T00:05:00Z2013-04-24T00:19:32ZPhoto: eggrole/Filckr/Creative Commons License There are an estimated 1,700-1,800 medical marijuana dispensaries currently operating in Los Angeles. However, if the city of Los Angeles and the City Council had their way, they'd like to limit that number to 135. Therein...Benjamin Gottliebhttp://www.kcet.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1823&id=4304

There are an estimated 1,700-1,800 medical marijuana dispensaries currently operating in Los Angeles. However, if the city of Los Angeles and the City Council had their way, they'd like to limit that number to 135.

Therein lies the crux of the medical marijuana debate being presented to voters on the May 21 ballot.

Should the remaining 1,600 or so medical marijuana shops be forced to close? Or should we allow these storefronts to remain open? Are they a nuisance to our neighborhoods or are they providing a legal and necessary service?

Ordinance F seeks to prevent any and all regulation on the number of medical pot shops allowed to operate in the city, so long as they meet a series of requirements. Those stipulations range from mandatory background checks to frequent testing of marijuana products sold to patients for pesticides and toxins.

No limit on the number of medical marijuana dispensaries able to operate within city limits.

Raises taxes on dispensaries from $50 to $60 for every $1,000 of gross earnings, a 20 percent increase.

Mandates testing of marijuana sold at dispensaries for pesticides and toxins.

Requires background checks for both employees and volunteers of all dispensaries.

Prohibits minors from entering dispensaries.

All dispensaries must stay closed between the hours of 10 p.m. to 10 a.m.

All residential collectives are exempt from regulation.

What Your Vote Means:

Voting YES would allow an unlimited number of medical marijuana dispensaries to operate within city limits, so long as they meet city standards. It would also increases taxes on dispensaries by 20 percent and requires background checks for both employees and volunteers working at each dispensary. Marijuana testing is also required under this ballot initiative.

Voting NO would put the future of the estimated 1,700 medical marijuana dispensaries that opened after the 2007 Los Angeles City Council-imposed moratorium at risk.

To assure financial transparency, Ordinance F requires each dispensary to file an annual audit report of its operations, certified by an independent certified public accountant, with the City Controller.

Like Proposition D, Ordinance F would raise taxes on medical marijuana dispensaries by 20, but it would not cap the number of dispensaries allowed.

Arguments Being Made Against:

There are more illegal pot shops than ice cream shops in Los Angeles, and Ordinance F would tie the hands of neighborhoods under siege by these illegal shops.

The continued operation of illegal pot shops only creates the potential for increased blight, takeover robberies and even homicides.

This initiative would place the city of Los Angeles in endless litigation and divert vital resources from core services.

Ordinance F will only protect the untold millions of dollars of illegal cash profits made by illegal pot shop owners at the expense of our communities.

Principal Proponent(s):

Angelenos for Safe Access Committee, a consortium of dispensaries not allowed under present city laws

For the full text of the ordinance, scroll through below:

NOTE: The author of this post -- not the proponents of each measure -- selected the aforementioned key points for each ballot measure. They do not represent all of the provisions detailed in Proposition D and ordinances E and F, rather they are intended to offer the salient details.

]]>
Posted Understanding the Difference Between L.A.'s 3 Medical Marijuana Measures to Ballot Brieftag:www.kcet.org,2013:/news/ballotbrief//1823.586252013-04-24T00:02:48Z2013-05-06T20:49:04ZThe future of medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles will be decided by the voters come May 21. The crux of the argument comes down to proliferation of pot clinics, not tax increases, as the two frontrunners stand on the opposite isle of the access to medicinal pot debate.Benjamin Gottliebhttp://www.kcet.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1823&id=4304

Los Angeles voters headed to the polls on May 21 will be asked to choose between three distinct, yet overlapping ballot measures seeking to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries operating within city limits.

Proponents of the three initiatives -- Proposition D and ordinances E and F -- argue that a new, comprehensive policy is necessary to put an end to nearly 17 years of ambiguity surrounding the distribution of medical marijuana in Los Angeles. The measures include plans to cap the number of dispensaries permissible, increase taxes on earnings, and standardize operation hours and distances from sensitive areas, such as schools and childcare centers.

Ordinance E, which made its way on the ballot via signature, has seen support from its proponents dwindle. Its key promoter, the United Food and Commercial Workers union (UFCW), decided to jump ship in January, throwing their vote behind the Los Angeles City Council's Proposition D, seen largely as a compromise between the two ordinances.

However due to current election rules, Ordinance E is there to stay.

"There's no way to remove Ordinance E from the May 21 ballot or the voter guide... and that may lead to some confusion," says Bradley Hertz, an attorney with the Sutton Law Firm who represented the proponents of Ordinance E. "It's up to the campaigners to help explain that."

City officials and those close to each campaign say Ordinance E's failure to levy additional taxes on dispensaries makes it the least desirable of the three ballot measures. Both Proposition D and Ordinance F would increase taxes on medical marijuana dispensaries from $50 to $60 per $1,000 of gross earnings, a 20 percent increase.

With Ordinance E in the periphery, the fate of medicinal pot in Los Angeles will come down to the question of proliferation. Proposition D would cap the number of dispensaries at 135, the exact number of clinics operating in the city prior to the September 2007 moratorium imposed by the City Council. Ordinance F would allow an unlimited number of medical marijuana collectives, so long as each dispensary meets a list of requirements.

"[Ordinance] F would allow the remaining 1,700 to 1,800 clinics not approved by the city to stay open," says Koretz, a principal supporter of Proposition D and self-proclaimed ally of medicinal pot use. "That may very well increase to over 2,000 dispensaries, many of which are nuisances in their neighborhoods."

Koretz points to his time on the West Hollywood City Council during the HIV and AIDS epidemics of the 1980s as proof that he isn't diametrically opposed to medical marijuana.

Proposition D, he says, is a "compromise between the two ordinances," taking the best ideas from both to create a safe and sustainable model for both patients of medicinal pot and the public at large. The city's proposition would also mandate background checks for employees of dispensaries and grant minors access to clinics only when accompanied by a parent or legal guardian.

Proponents of Ordinance F, however, believe that capping the number of dispensaries would make it difficult for patients to get access to the medicine prescribed by their doctors. Ordinance F would also prohibit minors from ever entering clinics and force volunteers, not just employees, to get background checks prior to working at dispensaries.

Supporters also argue that the city's approved list of medical marijuana clinics is arbitrary.

"We simply don't know how many medical marijuana patients there are in Los Angeles," says Bruce Margolin, Director of Los Angeles' NORML chapter, an advocacy group seeking outright legalization of marijuana. "Therefore, we believe clinic numbers should be based on supply and demand. What's wrong with that?"

Ken August, a spokesperson for the California Department of Public Health, explains that it's difficult to count the total number of medical marijuana users because patients are able to access medical marijuana through several different methods, including a doctor's note, a county medical registration card, and/or a state medical card.

"There's no requirement that a [medical marijuana] patient have a state-issued card. They are intended to be an assistance for law enforcement," August says.

Because the exact number of medical marijuana patients in California is unknown, placing a limit on dispensaries becomes a slippery game.

Garry South, a strategist for Angelenos for Safe Access, the consortium of dispensaries left off the city's list and supporting Ordinance F, agrees that capping dispensaries without knowing the exact number of patients is dangerous. He points to other provisions in Ordinance F -- such as mandatory testing of marijuana sold at each clinic for pesticides and toxins and a stipulation requiring clinics to have parking on their premises -- as proof that his puts the community first.

"Proposition D is a badly written piece of legislation, cut and pasted and put on ballot after E and F qualified," South says. "[Ordinance] F is better for the patients, as well as the public, because it was crafted with both patients and the public in mind."

Adding to the mystification, the three ballot measures each provide exemptions for certain medical marijuana growing operations. Proposition D would exempt grow operations of three or fewer caretakers and/or patients from regulation, while Ordinance F would exempt all "residential collectives."

And for Ordinance E, groups of five or fewer caregivers and/or patients who "cultivate or process medical marijuana" would be exempt.

"If you were thinking this through, under Ordinance E clinics could avoid regulation by shutting their doors after five people have entered," says Jane Usher of the Los Angeles City Attorney's office. "That's just another one of the quarks."

Even if more than one ballot measure passes, the initiative with the most votes will win. Despite this, Usher says her office expects a "tremendous volume of litigation" regardless of which ballot measure passes.

"If you were to ask me, from a legal standpoint, who has done the best job? It's the city's version," she says.

For a little help navigating these similar, yet distinct proposals, KCET's Ballot Brief has put together a cheat sheets for voters: Proposition D, Ordinance E, and Ordinance F.

]]>
Posted Gov. Brown Foresees Budget Surplus for 2013-14 to Raw Feedtag:www.kcet.org,2013:/shows/socal_connected/rawfeed//1984.548152013-01-11T00:14:24Z2013-01-11T02:02:47ZThe Governor's budget proposal includes an estimated $831 million surplus, the first in more than a decade.Benjamin Gottliebhttp://www.kcet.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1984&id=4304

Governor Jerry Brown unveiled his much-anticipated state budget proposal Thursday, complete with an estimated $831 million surplus, the first in more than a decade, Brown said in an official statement.

The state's education system is seen to be the major victor in this year's budget proposal thanks to Proposition 30, which will levy taxes to offset years of budget cuts for the state's K-12 and community college system. The UC and CSU systems will also receive an additional $250 million, an increase of 5 percent.

While funds will flood toward California's schools, the Governor's budget would deal significant blows to a number of state social programs. The State Supplementary Payment, which provides extra income for low-income seniors and persons with disabilities, and CalWORKs, a welfare program for needy California families, will both see their funding reduced to 1980s levels.

Additionally, child care and dependent tax credit refunds and the Healthy Families Program -- a low-cost insurance program for children and teens -- were eliminated.

]]>
]]>
Posted Gay Conversion Therapy Advocates, Therapists Continue Legal Battle for Legitimacy to Raw Feedtag:www.kcet.org,2012:/shows/socal_connected/rawfeed//1984.540892012-12-13T01:43:05Z2013-01-16T21:51:38ZA legal war has been brewing between a tiny vocal group of therapists and the State of California, backed by the larger medical establishment.Benjamin Gottliebhttp://www.kcet.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1984&id=4304By Dina Demetrius and Benjamin Gottlieb

Masked behind drawn blinds and a closed door, David Pickup - a licensed marriage and family therapist - assists clients who, in his words, struggle with "unwanted homosexual feelings." Pickup grappled with same sex attraction as well, and believes reparative therapy "saved" his life.

It's a controversial form of therapy, one that employs different monikers to avoid negative connotations: conversion, reorientation, "authentic" reparative, or even ex-gay therapy. But no matter how you label it, the therapy is meant to guide clients back to their "authentic" heterosexual selves.

The controversy, in fact, has developed into a legal war between a tiny vocal group of therapists and the State of California, backed by the larger medical establishment. The turf is the therapists' offices, and the battle is over the vulnerable psyches of minors who these therapists say are struggling with same-sex attraction.

Pickup believes he is helping those who struggle with their sexual orientation discover a way to shed the same-sex attraction that makes them so uncomfortable. Reparative therapists don't believe those homosexual feelings necessarily mean that their clients are gay.

A gay identity is what 36-year-old Aaron Bitzer struggled with as well. He says conversion therapy addressed his childhood wounds and helped him "de-sexualize" his feelings toward other men. Now he's studying to become a conversion therapist himself.

David Pickup described reparative therapy as "highly psycho-dynamic, deeply emotional work and techniques that heal or address, resolve the wounds that have created for some men and women the emotional issues that have caused their "homosexual feelings." He says this therapy "helps them transform their sexuality and maximize their heterosexual potential."

It's phrases like "authentic reparative therapy" and "maximize heterosexual potential" that have the vast majority of the psychiatric and psychological establishments shaking their heads.

"If there is a cure for my being Asian, then there's a cure for being gay," says Dr. Terry Gock, a clinical psychologist and former president of the American Psychological Association's Division 44, the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues.

Since homosexuality was removed as a disorder from the DSM in 1973, a number of medical organizations have publicly discredited this type of therapy as ineffectual and potentially harmful -- particularly for children.

And that's where the California Legislature picks up the ball -- with a law signed in late September that bans the use of the reparative therapy for minors. As a result, Pickup and Bitzer recently became plaintiffs in two different lawsuits against the state to stop the ban. Those suits produced two different rulings in two different federal courts last week.

In our segment tonight, we go behind the labels to expose what conversion therapy is -- juxtaposing those who feel it's been successful for them, and those who have undergone other horrifying attempts to steer them away from being gay. Correspondent Jennifer London also discusses the result of last week's lawsuit rulings with Val Zavala.

FOR THE RECORD: An earlier version of this post incorrectly identified Dr. Terry Gock as the former president of the American Psychological Association. The story has been updated with Gock's correct position as former president of the APA's Division 44.

]]>
Posted Gov. Jerry Brown Treated for Cancer to Raw Feedtag:www.kcet.org,2012:/shows/socal_connected/rawfeed//1984.540822012-12-12T23:34:00Z2012-12-12T23:33:57ZCalifornia Governor Jerry Brown is undergoing treatment for prostate cancer, the Governor's Office said today in a statement. Benjamin Gottliebhttp://www.kcet.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1984&id=4304
California Governor Jerry Brown is undergoing treatment for prostate cancer, the Governor's Office said today in a statement. ]]>
Brown's office described the cancer as "localized" and asserted that the Governor would continue working during his treatment.

"Fortunately, this is early stage localized prostate cancer, which is being treated with a short course of conventional radiotherapy," said Eric Small, Brown's oncologist at UC San Francisco, in a prepared statement. "The prognosis is excellent, and there are not expected to be any significant side effects."

Brown, 74, underwent a procedure to remove a cancerous growth on his nose in April of last year.

The Republican v. Republican battle has been in the limelight for months, emerging as the nexus for redistricting, unabated super PAC spending, and a primary system overhaul in the state.

Click here for our piece on the 31st District, an area that includes the cities of San Bernardino and Rancho Cucamonga.

Real-time results for California's Congressional races can be seen here.

]]>
Posted Barack Obama Re-elected to Second Term to Ballot Brieftag:www.kcet.org,2012:/news/ballotbrief//1823.517382012-11-07T04:22:27Z2012-11-07T05:07:20Z Barack Obama is projected to return to the White House for a second term as President of the United States. Multiple news sources, including CBS, CNN and MSNBC, called the race around 8:20 PST, citing a projected victory in...Benjamin Gottliebhttp://www.kcet.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1823&id=4304

Barack Obama is projected to return to the White House for a second term as President of the United States.

Multiple news sources, including CBS, CNN and MSNBC, called the race around 8:20 PST, citing a projected victory in the battleground state of Ohio as carrying the President over the 270 electoral vote threshold.

]]>
Posted Election 2012: Swing States to (once again) Decide the Presidency to Ballot Brieftag:www.kcet.org,2012:/news/ballotbrief//1823.517372012-11-07T03:13:40Z2012-11-07T05:18:58ZLike the worn-out cliché, "As goes Ohio, so goes the Nation," the next President of the United States will once again be decided by a handful of states.
Benjamin Gottliebhttp://www.kcet.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1823&id=4304

Like the worn-out cliché, "As goes Ohio, so goes the Nation," the next President of the United States will once again be decided by a handful of states.

It's a byproduct of the much-maligned electoral college; a system that often leaves the rest of the world scratching its head, but is undoubtedly and integral part of the American republic.

From Florida and Virginia to Ohio and North Carolina, a victory in any battleground state is a coveted prize for a candidate. However for GOP Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, the path to the magic number of 270 electoral votes relies heavily on winning most of these contests.

As precincts across the country race to tally the results from today's nationwide vote, here are the nine major swing states still in play:

True, many races are still too close to call. With a rising number of absentee voters, it's not farfetched to predict that results in some states may take weeks to determine. But there are states that have been safe to call for both candidates for months and arguably longer.

]]>
Posted California's 31st District: A Perfect Political Storm to Raw Feedtag:www.kcet.org,2012:/shows/socal_connected/rawfeed//1984.515502012-10-31T00:20:17Z2012-10-31T04:29:48ZDespite the spending deficit and the Republican Party's support for Miller, the race for California's 31st District remains up in the air. Benjamin Gottliebhttp://www.kcet.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1984&id=4304
One of the more compelling narratives this election year is happening in the state's newly created 31st Congressional District, which includes the cities of San Bernardino and Rancho Cucamonga.

The combination of redistricting, unabated super PAC spending, and a primary system overhaul has resulted in something of a perfect storm here, where two Republican candidates are vying for votes in a district with a Democratic majority.

]]>
Bob Dutton, who already represents roughly 60 percent of the 31st in his State Senate district, has been outspent by more than 10-to-1 by Congressman Gary Miller, a candidate backed by the Republican National Committee but still relatively unknown to most in the San Bernardino area.

Despite the spending deficit and the Republican Party's support for Miller, the race for California's 31st District remains up in the air.

It's a tricky scenario, one that begs the question of whether or not the state's election reforms have adequately addressed longstanding concerns of gerrymandering and provided voters with an improved electoral system.

"It's not the idyllic world that some of the proponents of the reforms played out, but it's a big improvement," says Doug Johnson, a fellow at the Rose Institute at Claremont McKenna College.

Watch our segment on California's highly contentious District 31, and make sure to voice your opinion in the comments below.